Solano v. United States, 3:11-cv-00112

Petitioner Juan F. Solano sought §2255 relief, alleging two ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims.
One claim asserted counsel failed to inform him of collateral consequences of a guilty plea; the other asserted entrapment was not properly raised.
The district court previously dismissed the entrapment claim with prejudice and allowed the collateral-consequences claim to proceed after reconsideration.
The court noted the collateral-consequences claim viability depended on timeliness under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f).
Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) raised retroactivity questions that were unresolved at the time; Chaidez v. United States subsequently resolved the retroactivity issue against Padilla’s retroactive application.
Ultimately, the court held Padilla did not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and the remaining IAC claim was untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the collateral-consequences IAC claim	Solano contends the claim is timely under §2255(f)(3).	Government argues the claim is untimely under §2255(f).	Claim barred by statute of limitations.
Retroactivity of Padilla v. Kentucky	Padilla is retroactive and applicable on collateral review.	Padilla has no retroactive effect according to Chaidez.	Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive on collateral review.
Merits of IAC for failure to inform collateral consequences	Failure to inform about collateral consequences constitutes IAC under Strickland.	Retroactivity issues foreclose consideration; otherwise, likely insufficient prejudice.	Remainder of IAC claim dismissed as untimely.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (drug penalties and deportation warnings for counsel duties)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard requiring prejudice)